Local problem, local solution

Gandhi famously said that a nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members. This is just as true when you boil it down to a local body level – and while our elderly aren’t the sole members of this group, they’re certainly well represented.

Say you’re fortunate to live long enough to be considered elderly. Call it your emeritus years if you want to romanticise it, but no matter how full your life has been, and how well you’re holding up physically and mentally, your needs still change.

Accommodation demands are at least more modest in terms of living space. But you still need somewhere to live. Typically, this looks like smaller, modern, low-maintenance and easy-access homes designed to cope with decreased mobility and reduced income.

Nelson has always had plenty of retirement appeal, so we have no shortage of demand for pensioner accommodation. Developers may be going flat stick to meet some of that demand with retirement villages, but what about that large chunk of an ageing population who lack the means to make one of these institutions a viable option?

This is worth pondering in light of the Nelson City Council’s recent announcement that it is weighing its options over the future of the community housing stock, namely 142 units in nine complexes. This is ageing stock, and the estimate that $20 million will need to be spent to bring some of them up to scratch is almost certainly conservative.

In the mix for the ongoing ownership of these properties are Housing New Zealand, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, and the Nelson Tasman Housing Trust. It’s possible the council envisages that these three bodies could share responsibility for the properties, but this is central government married to a local initiative. Who is ultimately going to call the shots?

How to house the elderly is not a uniquely Nelson problem, but surely if the opportunity exists to keep the solution local, that would be the most desirable outcome. The council won’t be supported by the Government to fund renovations or subsidise rent but, as a housing provider, the Nelson Tasman Housing Trust would be. It has a proven track record, having already provided 43 houses and counting.

The question remains: do we want to leave this to central government? Where would the priorities lie? HNZ’s policy is set in Wellington, and typically focuses on higher needs and groups with complex problems. Commercially, they get more bang for their buck from three- or four-bedroom homes than single- or two-bedroom flats.

There’s a critical need for social housing among a wide range of disadvantaged groups, not just the elderly, but HNZ already has a considerable stake in Nelson, about 565 properties, which it can utilise as it sees fit. This is only 142 units but, managed well, there is an opportunity for this resource to be maximised in terms of the density and a tenancy mix tailored to Nelson’s specific needs.

We can only hope the council is having in an indepth conversation with the trust before it makes a call on this.

Reaching old age is not guaranteed. But getting old is a great leveller, and should any of us find ourselves in need of a place to live, wouldn’t it be the most reassuring to know that our own community was well geared to meet that need?

‘‘We have no shortage of demand for pensioner accommodation . . . There’s a critical need for social housing among a wide range of disadvantaged groups, not just the elderly.’’